Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff bank sustained its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of the mortgage and the appellants' default in payment ( see, Home Sav. Bank v. Schorr Bros. Dev. Corp., 213 A.D.2d 512; Zitel Corp. v. Fonar Corp., 210 A.D.2d 221). Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the appellants to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action, such as waiver, estoppel, bad faith, fraud, or oppressive or unconscionable conduct on the part of the plaintiff ( see, Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 N.Y.2d 175, 183; Pellicane v. Norstar Bank, 213 A.D.2d 610). Here, the appellants' submissions in opposition to summary judgment, even when viewed in the light most favorable to them ( see, Fleet Mtge. Corp. v. Rebich, 227 A.D.2d 518), were insufficient to show the existence of genuine factual issues relating to a bona fide defense to foreclosure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.